A Mixed Review For CBS's "All Access" Online Video Streaming 85
lpress writes I tested CBS All Access video streaming. It has technical problems, which will be resolved, but I will still pass because they show commercials in addition to a $5.99 per month fee. Eventually, we will all cut the cord and have a choice of viewing modes — on-demand versus scheduled and with and without commercials — but don't expect your monthly bill to drop as long as our ISPs are monopolies or oligopolies.
Price of commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually, we will all cut the cord and have a choice of viewing modes — on-demand versus scheduled and with and without commercials
Don't expect many people will be willing to pay for skipping the commercials, once they see how much extra it is. You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra, are you willing to pay even that?
Why do you think every website, from Facebook to Twitter to the crappy newspaper down the street, is trying to get a way to show video ads? It's because they make a lot of money off those things.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't expect many people will be willing to pay for skipping the commercials, once they see how much extra it is. You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra, are you willing to pay even that?
Yet look at how much people are prepared to pay just for the convenience of having an always connected, portable computer in their pocket
Re: Price of commercials (Score:3, Informative)
In the 70s, when cable TV first started rolling out, one of the big selling points was "no ads." Obviously, the temptation to make more money won out, because after all... People will pay whatever you charge if they have no alternatives. We can rest assured the same will happen again.
Re: (Score:1)
I can rent or outright buy the dvds for seasons at a time for usually 15-30 bucks, less if I look at used dvds. All commercial free except for maybe 'hey here is another show you may like' at the front of the sometimes unskippable commercial. Instead of boring political drivel, or car I will not buy, or food I do not want to eat. For what I dont like I re-sell.
I too remember the promise of 'adfree' in cable. Then I remember 'only between shows'. Then I remember the promise of 'only quality ads'. That
Re: (Score:1)
when cable TV first started rolling out, one of the big selling points was "no ads."
You're mistaking the sales pitch for premium channels with the sales pitch for cable as a whole. You're thinking of early marketing for HBO/SHO/MAX/TMC
Cable in general was marketed as "more channels, clear picture"
Antenna might get you 5 or 6 useable channels, here that was:
WCIA 3, CBS Champaign (some slight snow)
WILL 12, PBS Urbana
WICD 15, NBC Champaign (too snowy most of the time, sometimes couldn't receive at all.)
WAND 17, ABC Decatur, (snowy)
WHOI 19, ABC Peoria
WICS 20, NBC Springfield (snowy)
WEEK 25
Re: (Score:2)
Not true, since cable TV started out as literally a shared antenna with cables to each house.. So it was "just" getting OTA, which obviously still had/has commercials in it.
Plus, even if that WERE true, just use a VCR or nowadays a DVR. (Though there are RARE times I will use On Demand for a show with 'forced' commercials.. Though several commercial-cable channels end up having their shows On Demand WITHOUT comm
Re: (Score:2)
I don't completely agree with this. Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades. If people can switch their content delivery medium and skip commercials, the demand for the commercials from the customer side (the customers are the advertisers) will plummet, and the legacy model will collapse. Once th
Why ads exist (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it will cost a fortune to skip commercials, but that is because the commercials are still tied to the legacy business model. They exist to make money for broadcast television, and have been a solid revenue stream for cable television for decades.
Advertisements make money for both the broadcaster AND for the company doing the advertizing. Ads exist because there is a market for companies that are trying to sell to customers. Broadcast TV is merely the medium and the broadcasters happen to have a platform for reaching customers. This is no different than newspapers or Google. The business model of having a platform to get ads in front of potential customers is alive and well. The only difference is WHICH platform works today. Google and Facebook are on the rise, TV is holding steady and newspapers/magazines are having a tough go of it. But they all have basically the same business model - it's just that certain platforms work better than others and thus are more profitable.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm totally okay with the move to a netflix like model.
Commercials? nope.
High quality original content? yep.
flat rate? yep.
Seriously, you can keep your 9 minutes of commercials per 30 minutes of uninspired idiotic TV.
Without sounding overly cynical, take something like 'Big Bang Theory'. You realize you're getting strung along like a marionette right? Commercial, dumbed down humor (with laugh track), blonde, commercial.. repeat.
Standalone HBO Go (Score:2)
If you were paying for [original streaming television series] directly, expect to pay what HBO charges
Hence HBO's recent announcement [slashdot.org] of plans to expand HBO Go into a standalone over-the-top service, because people have shown themselves willing "to pay what HBO charges", just not what the local multichannel pay television provider charges [theoatmeal.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They all have viable streaming avenues...unfortunately they don't often belong to the networks :)
It's amusing how underground, pirate, and other groups have done (with little to no funding) what the companies have been unable (or unwilling) to effectively do despite having the ability to easily throw $millions at the problem. Bad CBS, no cookie.
Re: (Score:2)
The networks have to comply with copyright law and the contracts they've signed with TV studios, so that makes it harder for them because they're obliged to control access to their streams and/or compensate the studios.
Re: (Score:2)
That's weird. Netflix cost me less than $20 and I there aren't even commercials to skip.
Hey, what a shock, Netflix's streaming options are shit because all the content companies decided that Netflix charges way too little. It's not even pay-per-view, the minimum standard for content company consumer gouging.
Re: (Score:2)
My kids are happy watching amateur-made crappy videos on YouTube. They can always find something on Netflix. At $6/month for less available content (and commercials???) I don't think they have much hope with the younger generation.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that they will get into trouble later - for now they are young enough that they are constantly supervised. Looking forward to puberty! LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations! They are now old enough for you to password protect your services.
Re: (Score:2)
You are lucky - we had to explain the birds and the bees without visual aids.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So true. Our teenagers are now completely uninterested in anything on TV, recorded or otherwise. Their transition to YouTube is complete.
Re: (Score:3)
My oldest son's latest YouTube love? Watching people play video games on YouTube. He loves video games, but we can't afford every game/gaming system out there. So he can see how a game progresses as someone plays each level. Even if we do get the game, the YouTube videos act as a purchasing filter for us. He can see if the game is something he'd want to play or not before having to spend the $50+ on it.
Copyright takedowns of Let's Play videos (Score:2)
My oldest son's latest YouTube love? Watching people play video games on YouTube. He loves video games, but we can't afford every game/gaming system out there. So he can see how a game progresses as someone plays each level.
And now you know why some video game publishers have decided to take down or at least claim ad revenue on Let's Play videos on copyright grounds. You have admitted the existence of a demographic for which a complete playthrough video substitutes for buying the game itself.
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there. In other cases, for example Mario Kart 8 videos, they got my son psyched up to try the tracks himself. Even the ones we can't afford to buy psych my son up and he will pester us about buying the game for weeks. These play through videos can be powerful commercials for the games.
Re: (Score:2)
In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there. [...] These play through videos can be powerful commercials for the games.
People who just flat-out pirate a game, movie, or album have made exactly this same excuse on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll put on my "soul-killing media company" hat here, because you're trying to argue logically with them, while they'll come at this from a different perspective.
In some ways, it is a substitute. However, many times these are games we aren't going to buy since we can't afford to buy every game out there.
Then you and your son can do without. It's either no experience, or you fork over the cash for the game. There is no legal middle ground there. You don't get to keep the cash and get a degraded game experience. Not being able to afford the media isn't an excuse, if you don't want to, or can't buy it, then you go without completely.
That would be the
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize Amazon bought twitch, a video game video site, for $970 million in cash, right?
I'd never heard of it before the news came out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never heard of it before the news came out.
I'm embarrassed to admit that you're ahead of me on this count -- I hadn't heard that Amazon was running a profit in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is because most people don't pay to visit a web site. Other than their ISP fees.
Re: (Score:2)
> You can be certain that skipping commercials will cost you more than $20 extra
I can already get ad free reruns for only $8.
With an antenna, I can get them for FREE.
Why should anyone expect it to cost as much as what you're claiming?
Re: (Score:1)
Commercials are okay. It's like an automatic pause button so you can go pee and make a sandwich.
Re: (Score:1)
You live long enough, and you'll know lots more. Maybe not all of them will get up first...
Re: (Score:3)
I never even finished my 2-week free trial of Hulu Plus because they wanted to charge a monthly fee and STILL force me to watch a show with just as many commercials as it had when it aired. I have no problem with a service that has commercials. I have no problem with a service that charges a monthly fee. But I do have a problem with a service that wants to do BOTH. I will be damned if I'm going to pay for the privilege of being forced to watch a bunch of commercials. Even my cableco's DVR let's me fast-forw
Re: (Score:2)
But that has to be bullshit. There is no way the amount of commercials that I view (skip over with Tivo) are worth $20 across all channels, let alone a single network.
CBS just thinks they are going to get to double-dip on pricing, and people will and for it. #1 network my ass. How many versions of the exact same CSI and NCIS can people put up with?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way the amount of commercials that I view (skip over with Tivo) are worth $20 across all channels, let alone a single network.
Do Nielsen ratings take into account commercials skipped with Tivo?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not even sure Nielsen ratings count Tivo time shifted programs at all. The old ratings and advertising systems seem to be breaking down.
lol (Score:3)
Blog posts filled with random unsupported opinions = News???
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, a big network buy-in to a new distribution model is definitely news in these parts, and "they still show commercials" is an informative summary telling you all that you really need to know.
Re: (Score:2)
And "picture and streaming quality was shitty no matter what device I used" seemed pretty useful to me.
Re: (Score:2)
mixed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bundle pricing (Score:2)
It costs a minimum of $35/month for me to get basic cable with 20 stations
Is that alone, or on top of what you already pay the cable company for high-speed Internet access?
6$/month for Television with commercials? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your wrong, because it's 6/month + commercials vs free + commercials
Free OTA w/ commercials or Pay w/ commercials? (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF??
I can record your shit OTA for free. If I'm giving you money I'm not watching commercials. Sorry this is DOA to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I am not watching their commercials period. I would pay extra for an alternate ad-free option before I would bother with this nonsense.
Although CBS comes in fine OTA where I live...
TiVo costs money (Score:2)
I can record your shit OTA for free.
That depends on how much you want to pay TiVo per month for DVR service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or hell a VCR and a timer!
Re: (Score:2)
Will Not Pay (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
100% Agree with this you want me to pay for it then no ads!! This is the only reason I refuse to subscribe to Hulu-plus no way in hell I'm paying them just so I can watch ads. And this is the reason NetFlix and Amazon Prime have my money No ADS!! As long as HBO goes Ad free then I may subscribe to them as well then I'm done that should be all I need or want.
Perfectly Fine with Hulu Plus (Score:2)
I have a simple rule; I will not pay a subscription for a service that also makes me watch ads. Not going to happen. Hulu-plus can fuck itself, as can this CBS trash.
I am perfectly fine with Hulu Plus, because what I am paying for there is a DVR not an advertisement free experience. After cutting the cord Hulu Plus is the easiest way to watch my shows whenever I want. Now CBS can go fuck itself because it just wants more money than what Hulu will give them. $8 per month for a DVR is fine, but $5-6 per month per channel is ridiculous. That is why I only watch Big Bang Theory and don't even try out new CBS shows anymore (the fact they make me wait an extra week makes me e
'Cut the cord' long ago, OTA FTW (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Current TiVos are CableCARD devices. They've started leaving out the antenna in ports.
Shows only exist to bring eyeballs to the ads (Score:3)
That goes for Facebook and Youtube and all of the other services, too. They just stumbled on cheaper ways to produce their "shows", namely provide the infrastructure for viewers to entertain each other.
$5.99 for CBS???? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can get all three of the channels you mentioned bundled together with about 200 other channels delivered by satellite for about $40 a month... paying channel by channel just gets too many credit card fees on the way there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
All of Hulu = $8, CBS alone equals $5.99... CNBC/CNBC World is similarly priced.
OTA FTW (Score:3)
OTA plus HTPC-based DVR plus comskip = F U CBS
How about (Score:1)
a Youtube model where I can store my preferences locally? I wouldn't even necessarily need an account, then. There'd be commercials sprinkled in, but otherwise I'd have access to everything made by the networks ever. And then, if I don't like the commercials, I can whip out my card and pay to get just the shows.